View Full Version : Pandora, Some Actual Performance Numbers ..

December 4th, 2008, 20:07
News from Skeezix: (http://www.gp32x.com/board/index.php?act=ST&f=62&t=45583)

Hey my friends ..

We're all hungry for our release units, and we all know everyone is dieing for more info and news, and we all know the boys are too busy to fill our demands But there are a few of us devkit lads on board now, so likely some more info will get leaked.

This is unofficial; I'm not speaking for the devs, and may make errors. I'm not intending to step on the toes of any of the very fine devs for any of the devices (disclosure, I've got dev units of all of them!). Craigs statement about saying something that is true for only 3 days being bandied about for 3 months is ever so true It is also tough to post performance numbers without people thinking its a diss to the non-topmost machine. I don't want to say that, since there are other factors (price, portability, screen preferences, add-ons, support, controls, weight, and so on.)

You might recall my past thread http://www.gp32x.com/board/index.php?showtopic=44373&hl= comparing gp2x to GP2x Wiz. See that for some commentary on what is accurate or inaccurate for those tests (ie: optimized code on gp2 versus unoptimized code on the Wiz, including SDL versus framebuffer, meaning the Wiz numbers are artificially lower and the gp2x ones are pretty high, so the Wiz should actually perform higher in relation to the gp2x than I showed.) Defining a 'fair' benchmark is hard since everyone has a different idea (all running at their best or worst? the type of test.. be it math, graphics, bus intensive .. it is easy to have a test that hits a weakness in one but a strenght in another, and is that a fair thing (typical use) or a cheat (atypical use)? Hard questions.)

Suffice to say my number is a _SINGLE_ (yet repeatable) test; a good benchmark is comprised of many benchmark tests so you can get a good picture from many perspectives.. not just a 'throwing this out there' number.

Still, it is a pretty telling number sometimes as well!

All that said..

Given OutcaST (an emu for which many of you have seen and used for some 6+ years from me in various forms), in a emulated CPU-torture test. (ie: Atari ST sitting at the GEM desktop with a stock TOS image will be in a tight CPU grind loop.) Doesn't really hit the ST's graphic system hard or the like, but the ST wasn't really a complex machine for graphics anyway. So it tests the emulation pretty well, in a situation that makes the mu perform worse than average. (ie: If it normally woudl run 60fps for a game, it'd run this GEM situation at 40-45fps at a guess.) Its also easy to auto-boot into, so no keyboard or audio or the like making the test more situational.. its pure out emulation with the machine not even trying to play audio.

GP2x stock F100, 200MHz IIRC. Highly optimized code.

GP2x Wiz dev unit (not final hardware but pretty close); The code is on GPH slow software only SDL. (no acceleration.) 533MHz.

Pandora Mk2 (version 1.1) devboard; 500MHz. Notaz quick SDL port using framebuffer. ie: Not optimized, but I think its prolly better than the GPH version on the Wiz. (GPH stuff tends to be slower for some reason, perhaps they don't compile with optimizatoins on in the compiler, or add debugging stuff, or the mouse support is in the way, or something.)

Sony PSP original FAT version. Not optimized for multi-cpu core, not really using the separate GPU for anything in this test. (ie: alpha blendsing UIs and such are in the code, but not during this test.) Essentially the PSP is chugging along at 333MHz if memory serves.. I don't recall if I'm clocking down or not in this case .. didn't loo back at the code to see.

Latest version of Outcast fro mthe gp2x, converted crappily to SDL on the non-F100 machines.

GP2x 49fps

GP2x Wiz 70fps

Pandora dev board mk2 180fps

Sony PSP 53fps

During actual game emulation the numbers are all higher by about 20-25%, but thats out of scope for this.

It is hard to explain the pandora being so far out in front of the others; my guess is the less congested bus, the processor being a multigenerational gap (the Pandora CPU is a far far newer design than in the GP2x), and the big cache on the CPU in the pandora.

Note my comments above; the 70 versus 49 (Wiz to gp2x) may not seem so impressive in relation to the pandora, but going back to the origiunal post I was pretty impressed. The Wiz _IS_ a snappy beasty (and this is a bit of a torture test, not a typical emu gameplay test!), so it is a very exciting device.

The Pandora is freaking goddamned fast.